list_discover_tv_upcoming

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the GET endpoint, which is consistent with read-only behavior, but adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior or language expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded with its one-line purpose, and the endpoint line is useful. However, the 'Args' block duplicates the input schema and adds no information, so not every line earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list call with two optional parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. Gaps include no differentiation from similar discover endpoints and no format guidance for the language parameter, though the defaults and output schema cover the basic zero-arg call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'page: Query parameter. language: Query parameter.' merely restates the parameter names and location without defining semantics such as language format or page bounds. The 'Query parameter' label provides only minor credit by clarifying they are not body parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (upcoming TV shows) and includes the HTTP endpoint, so an agent knows it returns discover results for upcoming TV. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly set itself apart from closely named siblings such as list_discover_tv or list_discover_trending.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never references alternatives. An agent gets no help choosing between this and list_discover_tv, list_discover_movies_upcoming, or list_discover_trending; the only signal is the name itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.